Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
2 is:
3 Lizio US 3,208,587 Sep. 28, 1965
4 Miller US 3,827,625 Aug. 06, 1974
5 Kim US 5,054,618 Oct. 08, 1991
6
7 The Examiner contends (Answer 3) that Lizio teaches the first closure
8 being cut or severed, but does not specifically indicate that the severing is
9 along a line of weakness. To overcome this deficiency of Lizio, the
10 Examiner turns to Kim for a teaching of a bag having an adhesive closure,
11 with the closure being severable along a line of weakness. The Examiner's
12 position is that it would have been obvious to apply the teaching of a line of
13 weakness to the first closure in Lizio, because doing so allows for easier and
14 controlled severing of the closure for access to the bag.
15 Appellants contend (Br. 4) that the first closure member (32, 42, or
16 46) does not seal the package as required by the claim, and (Br. 5) that Kim's
17 disclosure of an adhesive with a line of weakness does not make up for the
18 deficit of Lizio. It is argued (id.) that in Lizio, compressed articles 22,
19 packaged in their compressed condition will not expand upon opening of the
20 so-called "first closure member." Appellants assert (Br. 6) that Lizio goes to
21 great lengths to ensure that its second closure member remains sealed so as
22 to keep articles 22 free of contamination and allow the same to retain their
23 sterilized characteristics. Appellants submit (id.) that since the compressed
24 articles of Lizio will have no room to expand upon opening of the so-called
25 "first closure member", the disclosure of Lizio falls outside the scope of the
26 claims. Appellants contend (Br. 7) that an artisan would be loath to place
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013